free-range politics, organic community

Just how close are we to war with Russia?

Submitted by gjohnsit on Sat, 03/24/2018 - 4:05pm

It didn't get much attention at the time, but a week ago, right after warmonger Nikki Haley threatened to bomb Syria, Russia warned of retaliation against U.S. forces if that happened.
This was not an empty threat, despite what many in America might think. Russia is scared, and it's always a mistake to make a nuclear armed nation fear for its existence.

A leading Russian diplomat has accused the U.S. of trying to bring conflict to Moscow under the cloak of exporting democratic values—something he said Washington has already done in parts of Europe and the Middle East over the past two decades.
.."The United States’ continued policy aimed at achieving political goals under the guise of the struggle for democracy has been creating chaos in the past 20 years, causing wars and destroying a number of countries," Ryabkov said, according to the state-run Tass Russian News Agency. "Yugoslavia is no more, Iraq and Libya are bursting at the seams and events in Ukraine are also worth mentioning."
"U.S. hotheads wouldn’t mind to do [sic] the same to Russia as they consider us the major threat to their global dominance," he added.

Now many may disagree with that statement. We are the good guys, right? We don't seek global dominance.
Do you know who doesn't disagree with the assessment that the source of this tension and fear is U.S. imperialism? The U.S. Army.

The US Army’s Culture, Regional Expertise, and Language Management Office last year released a relatively even-handed study analyzing the drivers behind the current geopolitical tensions between the US and Russia, I recently found out.
The study in question states quite bluntly that the primary driver for US-led interference in Russian politics during the 1990s and onwards, and the ongoing expansion of NATO in the region, has been the desire by the US to dominate the oil and gas reserves of Central Asia, and also any pipeline routes through the region — as well as to install economic systems beneficial to the US.
In other words, the study acknowledges that the primary driver of increasing conflict between the US and Russia has been American efforts to exploit the resources of regions that Russia considers to be within its natural “sphere of influence” … and that Russia’s increasing militarism only makes sense within that context.

Any potential war with Russia won't start on the border of Latvia or Poland or even Ukraine.
It'll start in Syria, and it could start at any time.

Anderson's commander, Rear Adm. Steve Koehler, told USNI that "the threat picture in Syria is just crazy."
"How many different countries can you cram in one different place, where they all have a different little bit of an agenda? And you put a tactical pilot up there and he or she has to employ ordnance or make defensive counter-air decisions with multiple people - Russians, Syrians, Turks, ISIS, United States," Koehler said.
As a result of the multi-faceted geopolitical complexity, US pilots are now in much more danger than a regular combat mission, according to retired US Marine Corps Lt. Col. David Berke."If you misinterpret what someone does, you can create a massive problem, you can start a war," Berke said. "I can't think of a more complex place for there to be or a greater level of risk."

Meanwhile, the news media, despite the real danger, is busy beating the drums of war.

On March 16, 2017, UN Resident Coordinator in Syria Ali al-Zaatari during his speech at a closed meeting on the humanitarian situation on Syria in Geneva noted the Russian Reconciliation Center leading role in the evacuation of civilians from Eastern Ghouta. He also emphasized the full assistance of the Reconciliation Center officers to the international observers in the area of operation.

I haven't been able to verify it, but since we repeatedly bomb pro-government forces in Syria, while our allies are frequently al-Qaeda jihadists, who exactly is stoking this hellish war?

One last thing, going to war with Russia in Syria doesn't just mean going to war with the Syrian government. It also means going to war with Iran, and all of its proxy forces everywhere.

An official from the Secretariat of the Iraq Council of Ministers, speaking to al-Arabi al-Jadeed on condition of anonymity, claimed the US had taken the threats by some of the Hashd al-Shaabi factions seriously.
The Iraqi official said the US and other coalition member states with troops in Iraq have created “no-man zones” around their bases and have informed the Iraqi government that Hashd al-Shaabi forces are not permitted “within 20 kilometers” of those areas.
The alleged US measures come at a time when several Iranian-backed Shia militias have recently increased their threatening rhetoric against America’s military presence in Iraq.

Even with a $1 Trillion military budget, can we put troops everywhere in the world, and fight everyone in the world at the same time? I don't think so.

Comments

are looking to get ass-kicked hard. It's time they were brought down.
Russia can live without the west but the west needs what they have. Resources.
Perhaps humans will finish the job before mother nature has her way.
I see nothing in the geopolitical scheme that says humans will survive another generation.

up

14 users have voted.

—

Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.

With Pompeo at State and Bolton as the national security advisor, the neocon takeover of the US geopolitical agenda, which began in April 2017, is complete.

Even before the Iran nuclear deal is gutted by Washington (with fearful silence from P5+1 countries Britain, France, and Germany) — Syria will be destroyed and its valuable resources seized for the corporations. The false-flag chemical attack in the UK, promoted by May, Merkle, and Macron, will silence Europe.

The full-scale US war against Syria is at hand — and with it, a deliberate US/Russia confrontation will be staged. This dying empire sees war with Russia as the only way to stop China from rising as a power.

I think Americans will accept their fate with silence, as well. The propaganda has done its job. Their only hope for peace is if their legislators put forward a motion declaring war on Syria.

Such a blatant motion would be unlikely pass. That would create an immediate legal order to the military to end their illegal occupation in that country.

But how likely is it that Congress would ever dabble in matters of war as they once did?

The paycheck of every elected person in DC depends on continuous wars.

up

19 users have voted.

—

The purpose of a writer is to keep civilization from destroying itself.
– Albert Camus

U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley has railed against the Syrian government’s recently intensified campaign to retake the insurgent-held district of eastern Ghouta outside Damascus, accusing Syria and its Russian and Iranian allies of mounting civilian casualties.

If we hadn't invaded Syria in the first place, she wouldn't need to be lecturing the Syrian government.
This is like when we said that we had to attack the pro Syrian troops for self defense purposes.

If Bolton thinks that Russia will sit back and watch as we try for regime change in Iran, he'd better think again. Look for a false flag gas attack in Syria soon. Possibly during the World Cup which May has told Russia that she and the royal family will not be attending. In fact, Russia has already warned about the false flag event using sarin gas. We would be very stupid to go through with it, but I'm not holding my breath for the war administration to stop it.

If the military can't get enough Americans to join it, they'll just hire some more AQ or ISIS dudes and go from there. I wonder how the people in the military feel about working with them? I think I'd be pretty pissed about doing this. Especially if I had seen my buddies injured or killed by them.

up

17 users have voted.

—

America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery

A column by Peter Hitchens (yes, the brother of..) He makes a very frighten point when one considers the implication. Basically, maybe some powers within the Kremlin did in fact arrange for the nerve agent poisoning. Why?

But the more I look at it, the more I think that the message from this outrage is as follows.

If Britain really wants a war with Russia, as our Government seems to, then Russia will provide that war.

...

If the attack on Sergei Skripal was also a Kremlin operation, then it was done to tell us this: If we want to play tough guys with Moscow, we had better be prepared for the worst.

....

But what the Skripal case tells us is that, long after the Cold War ended, we still choose to treat Russia as the sort of country where we should continue active, aggressive spying and efforts to bring down the government.

Not only did we pay Colonel Skripal a lot of money for the names of Russian agents in the West, we financed opponents of the Russian government (and we complain that they mess around in our politics!). Why do we do this?

...

They are much angrier with us now than they were then. Yes, what they apparently did in Salisbury is a filthy, inexcusable thing.

But it is the face of modern combat, in a war our government chose to fight. What answer do we have to it that will not make it worse

Maybe the Russians discovered a UK plot to disrupt the World Cup and this is their warning to the Brits that there will be serious relatiation? The Saudis threatened to send Chechen terrorists to Sochi, and never head of them--I image when the Saudis threatened Putin, they came to regret it. But given the utter arrogance and stupidity of the neocons in the UK and the US, maybe Russia is sending a message--"do not fuck with us".

Is this a warning? In the past few days I have begun to sense a dangerous and dark new intolerance in the air, which I have never experienced before. An unbidden instinct tells me to be careful what I say or write, in case it ends badly for me. How badly? That is the trouble. I am genuinely unsure.

I have been to many countries where free speech is dangerous. But I have always assumed that there was no real risk here.

Now, several nasty trends have come together. The treatment of Jeremy Corbyn, both by politicians and many in the media, for doing what he is paid for and leading the Opposition, seems to me to be downright shocking.
...
I sense an even deeper and more thoughtless frenzy over Russia, a country many seem to enjoy loathing because they know so little about it.

I have already been accused, on a public stage, of justifying Moscow’s crime in Salisbury. This false charge was the penalty I paid for trying to explain the historical and political background to these events. I wonder if the bitterness also has something to do with the extraordinarily deep division over the EU, which has made opponents into enemies in a way not seen since the Suez Crisis.
...Last week there was a mugging on the secluded, picturesque path I often take on my way home. It wasn’t the first. For me, such places, away from crowds and noise, are one of the great joys of life. And, for all the time since I was born until very recently, it never crossed my mind that seclusion might also mean danger. Now it does. How very dispiriting and sad.
...

The only thing that makes sense is the Skripal poisoning was a false flag. Peter Hitchens made much more sense with his previous reporting that it was NOT to Russia's benefit to publicly poison Skripal and his daughter. He has now done a complete 180. I think he now fears for his life.

A column by Peter Hitchens (yes, the brother of..) He makes a very frighten point when one considers the implication. Basically, maybe some powers within the Kremlin did in fact arrange for the nerve agent poisoning. Why?

But the more I look at it, the more I think that the message from this outrage is as follows.

If Britain really wants a war with Russia, as our Government seems to, then Russia will provide that war.

...

If the attack on Sergei Skripal was also a Kremlin operation, then it was done to tell us this: If we want to play tough guys with Moscow, we had better be prepared for the worst.

....

But what the Skripal case tells us is that, long after the Cold War ended, we still choose to treat Russia as the sort of country where we should continue active, aggressive spying and efforts to bring down the government.

Not only did we pay Colonel Skripal a lot of money for the names of Russian agents in the West, we financed opponents of the Russian government (and we complain that they mess around in our politics!). Why do we do this?

...

They are much angrier with us now than they were then. Yes, what they apparently did in Salisbury is a filthy, inexcusable thing.

But it is the face of modern combat, in a war our government chose to fight. What answer do we have to it that will not make it worse

Maybe the Russians discovered a UK plot to disrupt the World Cup and this is their warning to the Brits that there will be serious relatiation? The Saudis threatened to send Chechen terrorists to Sochi, and never head of them--I image when the Saudis threatened Putin, they came to regret it. But given the utter arrogance and stupidity of the neocons in the UK and the US, maybe Russia is sending a message--"do not fuck with us".

Is this a warning? In the past few days I have begun to sense a dangerous and dark new intolerance in the air, which I have never experienced before. An unbidden instinct tells me to be careful what I say or write, in case it ends badly for me. How badly? That is the trouble. I am genuinely unsure.

I have been to many countries where free speech is dangerous. But I have always assumed that there was no real risk here.

Now, several nasty trends have come together. The treatment of Jeremy Corbyn, both by politicians and many in the media, for doing what he is paid for and leading the Opposition, seems to me to be downright shocking.
...
I sense an even deeper and more thoughtless frenzy over Russia, a country many seem to enjoy loathing because they know so little about it.

I have already been accused, on a public stage, of justifying Moscow’s crime in Salisbury. This false charge was the penalty I paid for trying to explain the historical and political background to these events. I wonder if the bitterness also has something to do with the extraordinarily deep division over the EU, which has made opponents into enemies in a way not seen since the Suez Crisis.
...Last week there was a mugging on the secluded, picturesque path I often take on my way home. It wasn’t the first. For me, such places, away from crowds and noise, are one of the great joys of life. And, for all the time since I was born until very recently, it never crossed my mind that seclusion might also mean danger. Now it does. How very dispiriting and sad.
...

The only thing that makes sense is the Skripal poisoning was a false flag. Peter Hitchens made much more sense with his previous reporting that it was NOT to Russia's benefit to publicly poison Skripal and his daughter. He has now done a complete 180. I think he now fears for his life.

@edg
Here's the whole timeline. Note he was banned for his initial views on Russia. As soon as he agreed with the TPTB in the UK, he was unbanned. I think he felt threatened as he had written on the 18th. That is why he went with the status quo that Russia did it, despite no further proof - just conjecture.

Some Reflections on the Revolting Events in Salisbury
08 March 2018 12:18 PM
Whatever happened to the old Policeman’s ABC (equally useful to journalists and politicians, in my view) – ‘Assume Nothing. Believe Nobody. Check Everything’? It seems to have been abandoned by her Majesty’s Foreign Office (though not by the Home Office) and by most of the media, including the BBC.

It is assumed that poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia, and of a so-far unnamed police officer, for whose recoveries we should all hope and (if we can) pray, is and must be the work of the Russian state.

But is this so? I would say, at the time of writing, that we simply do not know that this is the case, and cannot assume it as certain. In fact, to do so is to close our minds to any other possibility, and perhaps hamper the investigation.
...

I was astonished on Thursday night to be asked to appear on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme. How could I refuse, having written here that I appeared to have been banned from it?
...
But I found it necessary to mount an almost constant defence of my position on Russia (from attacks from more than one direction) on Twitter, and I also found it very hard to take my mind away from this subject. Normal service will be resumed, eventually.

Is this a warning? In the past few days I have begun to sense a dangerous and dark new intolerance in the air, which I have never experienced before. An unbidden instinct tells me to be careful what I say or write, in case it ends badly for me. How badly? That is the trouble. I am genuinely unsure.
...

Just spent all day trying to write an explanatory comment on why I disagreed with Hitchen's suggestion of why Russia might have done it when I've been barely able to see straight of late and here's the likely explanation of why. Which I should have guessed at. We are dealing with psychopathic mobsters and thugs in governments, after all.

#5.1.1
Here's the whole timeline. Note he was banned for his initial views on Russia. As soon as he agreed with the TPTB in the UK, he was unbanned. I think he felt threatened as he had written on the 18th. That is why he went with the status quo that Russia did it, despite no further proof - just conjecture.

Some Reflections on the Revolting Events in Salisbury
08 March 2018 12:18 PM
Whatever happened to the old Policeman’s ABC (equally useful to journalists and politicians, in my view) – ‘Assume Nothing. Believe Nobody. Check Everything’? It seems to have been abandoned by her Majesty’s Foreign Office (though not by the Home Office) and by most of the media, including the BBC.

It is assumed that poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia, and of a so-far unnamed police officer, for whose recoveries we should all hope and (if we can) pray, is and must be the work of the Russian state.

But is this so? I would say, at the time of writing, that we simply do not know that this is the case, and cannot assume it as certain. In fact, to do so is to close our minds to any other possibility, and perhaps hamper the investigation.
...

I was astonished on Thursday night to be asked to appear on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme. How could I refuse, having written here that I appeared to have been banned from it?
...
But I found it necessary to mount an almost constant defence of my position on Russia (from attacks from more than one direction) on Twitter, and I also found it very hard to take my mind away from this subject. Normal service will be resumed, eventually.

Is this a warning? In the past few days I have begun to sense a dangerous and dark new intolerance in the air, which I have never experienced before. An unbidden instinct tells me to be careful what I say or write, in case it ends badly for me. How badly? That is the trouble. I am genuinely unsure.
...

up

3 users have voted.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

So why does Hitchens think that we in Belfast should trust Russia more?

“The whole current attitude to Russia from the European nations and North America is verging on the insane,” he says. “It’s a ridiculous, over-estimation of Russia’s power and an attribution to Russia of motives that seem to me that don’t even exist and certainly can’t be proved.

“It’s quite possible that the next European war will be based on this misunderstanding of Russia, so it’s not the case of being more welcoming to Russia, more of case of just leaving it alone. We have no border with Russia, we dispute no seas, we barely trade with one another and don’t have any shared interest or disputed territories over which to quarrel, so there’s absolutely no reason for us to have anything more interest other than polite foreign relations.”
...

@MrWebster
Publicly killing a double agent AND his Russian daughter in London means fuck all when it comes to Saudi and US backing terrorists in Chechnya or in Syria. The same for Alexander Litvinenko. That poisoning served only to demonize Putin and Russia. Who in the US or Saudi Arabia really gives a flying fuck about a washed up spy that was convicted, pardoned and released.

Cui bono. Cui bono. Cui bono.

When you have to twist yourself into a fucking pretzel to give a reason why Putin would do something like this you should understand you are barking up the wrong tree. Putin has a long history of publicly stating his position and acting upon it. He doesn't have any reason to play these games.

You people here are very knowledgeable. Look back in history at previous false flag events executed by the US and it's allies for propaganda purposes.

A column by Peter Hitchens (yes, the brother of..) He makes a very frighten point when one considers the implication. Basically, maybe some powers within the Kremlin did in fact arrange for the nerve agent poisoning. Why?

But the more I look at it, the more I think that the message from this outrage is as follows.

If Britain really wants a war with Russia, as our Government seems to, then Russia will provide that war.

...

If the attack on Sergei Skripal was also a Kremlin operation, then it was done to tell us this: If we want to play tough guys with Moscow, we had better be prepared for the worst.

....

But what the Skripal case tells us is that, long after the Cold War ended, we still choose to treat Russia as the sort of country where we should continue active, aggressive spying and efforts to bring down the government.

Not only did we pay Colonel Skripal a lot of money for the names of Russian agents in the West, we financed opponents of the Russian government (and we complain that they mess around in our politics!). Why do we do this?

...

They are much angrier with us now than they were then. Yes, what they apparently did in Salisbury is a filthy, inexcusable thing.

But it is the face of modern combat, in a war our government chose to fight. What answer do we have to it that will not make it worse

Maybe the Russians discovered a UK plot to disrupt the World Cup and this is their warning to the Brits that there will be serious relatiation? The Saudis threatened to send Chechen terrorists to Sochi, and never head of them--I image when the Saudis threatened Putin, they came to regret it. But given the utter arrogance and stupidity of the neocons in the UK and the US, maybe Russia is sending a message--"do not fuck with us".

them then it was because they were sending a message saying "don't fuk with us." It's pretty stupid that countries are trying to ramp up a war with Russia right after Putin showed the world his new weapons. But stupidity has never stopped our government.

#5
Publicly killing a double agent AND his Russian daughter in London means fuck all when it comes to Saudi and US backing terrorists in Chechnya or in Syria. The same for Alexander Litvinenko. That poisoning served only to demonize Putin and Russia. Who in the US or Saudi Arabia really gives a flying fuck about a washed up spy that was convicted, pardoned and released.

Cui bono. Cui bono. Cui bono.

When you have to twist yourself into a fucking pretzel to give a reason why Putin would do something like this you should understand you are barking up the wrong tree. Putin has a long history of publicly stating his position and acting upon it. He doesn't have any reason to play these games.

You people here are very knowledgeable. Look back in history at previous false flag events executed by the US and it's allies for propaganda purposes.

up

4 users have voted.

—

America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery

Remember when the Russian jet was downed by the Turks? Putin did not do anything rash. He initiated a diplomatic response. When it wasn't responded to in a suitable manner, Putin sanctioned Turkey. He cut off Russian tourism and fruit and vegetable imports. This cost Turkey untold billions of dollars which they have never fully recovered from. Russian tourists started going to Crimea and Sochi instead. It also was a tremendous boost to Russian greenhouse growers of tomatoes and other vegetables.

I think the Turkish pilot was controlled by a foreign government to exacerbate relations between Turkey and Russia. Remember that this occurred before the failed coup in Turkey where some Turkish military had taken control of Incirlik Air Base for several days. Since this happened, Russia and Turkey have "made up" and signed and started the Turkish Stream pipeline that replaced the EU/US trashed South Stream. It is now more than half completed with just the intermediate undersea section now being completed at record speed. The US has long opposed this pipeline. Hillary once said it would never be completed.

The above is how Putin operates. He has NEVER done anything that would hurt Russia - especially for a short sighted move just to "save face". He is a judo master. He readily rolls with the punches and uses the opponents strengths to his own advantage.

The Skripal poisoning is a false flag to damage Putin and Russia. The stupids in the West will believe anything - they are so fucking stupid.

them then it was because they were sending a message saying "don't fuk with us." It's pretty stupid that countries are trying to ramp up a war with Russia right after Putin showed the world his new weapons. But stupidity has never stopped our government.

@CB
What Hitchens was saying in the article was that the UK government has waged unnecessary black ops operations against Russia even before Putin was in power. That the UK government has tried to pull nasty shit on the Russians, when in fact, Russia as he sees it is not an enemy of the UK.

But yes, it does seem on the logic it is stupid for the Russians to do this. Hitchens is not arguing that the Russians are evil or deranged, but that the UK government is pushing them beyond a line that to even tesst Russian patience. It goes back I suppose to the cliche about kicking a sleeping dog, or in this case, a bear. And the bear is nasty when doing this.

I have no idea myself although I tend to it being a false flag to ramp up against the Russians and force the US and EU to take more drastic actions such as stopping Nord Strem 2 in particular.

Either way, the result is pushing toward war.

#5
Publicly killing a double agent AND his Russian daughter in London means fuck all when it comes to Saudi and US backing terrorists in Chechnya or in Syria. The same for Alexander Litvinenko. That poisoning served only to demonize Putin and Russia. Who in the US or Saudi Arabia really gives a flying fuck about a washed up spy that was convicted, pardoned and released.

Cui bono. Cui bono. Cui bono.

When you have to twist yourself into a fucking pretzel to give a reason why Putin would do something like this you should understand you are barking up the wrong tree. Putin has a long history of publicly stating his position and acting upon it. He doesn't have any reason to play these games.

You people here are very knowledgeable. Look back in history at previous false flag events executed by the US and it's allies for propaganda purposes.

@MrWebster
to Russian sales of their gas. China will take it and the US will lose out there. If Germany wants to be America's bitch then they can pay extra for US LNG. Americans will then also have to pay more in the future because the US is still a net importer of hydrocarbons. They had to buy several tankers of Russian sourced LNG to make it through last winter.

#5.2 What Hitchens was saying in the article was that the UK government has waged unnecessary black ops operations against Russia even before Putin was in power. That the UK government has tried to pull nasty shit on the Russians, when in fact, Russia as he sees it is not an enemy of the UK.

But yes, it does seem on the logic it is stupid for the Russians to do this. Hitchens is not arguing that the Russians are evil or deranged, but that the UK government is pushing them beyond a line that to even tesst Russian patience. It goes back I suppose to the cliche about kicking a sleeping dog, or in this case, a bear. And the bear is nasty when doing this.

I have no idea myself although I tend to it being a false flag to ramp up against the Russians and force the US and EU to take more drastic actions such as stopping Nord Strem 2 in particular.

@CB
it was convenient to buy Russian LNG since it was already afloat and the split in the polar vortex had the US northeast in deep freeze. If you look at North Dakota from space you can see all the Nat Gas being feared off. It's as bright as Chicago. It just not easily move to east coast.

#5.2.2
to Russian sales of their gas. China will take it and the US will lose out there. If Germany wants to be America's bitch then they can pay extra for US LNG. Americans will then also have to pay more in the future because the US is still a net importer of hydrocarbons. They had to buy several tankers of Russian sourced LNG to make it through last winter.

@Song of the lark
Collecting, piping and processing (removing CO2, H2S and condensates plus dehydrating) can be very expensive. Shale gas wells produce the majority of the oil in the first several years after which it decreases rapidly. At current oil pricing, this would be prohibitively expensive to capture all flaring. Many wells would be forced to collect compressed gas using trucks and trucked to collection points. It has to be processed before it can be sent to the customer or liquefied in to LNG.

Many oil producers have chosen to restrict oil production and continue flaring rather than pay the high cost of getting the waste gas to market. Gas wells are a different story. The waste from these wells is oil condensates which is best used to mix with the heavy Canadian and Venezuelan crude so the shit can be piped. This is a very volatile oil that can (and has) caused huge explosions when shipped by train.

A large part of the existing pipeline system is old (half older than 50 years) and leaking. This has to be repaired/replaced. The US customer is going to have to pay a lot more for their gas if flaring and leakage are to be stopped.

#5.2.2.1 it was convenient to buy Russian LNG since it was already afloat and the split in the polar vortex had the US northeast in deep freeze. If you look at North Dakota from space you can see all the Nat Gas being feared off. It's as bright as Chicago. It just not easily move to east coast.

@CB
Yah, as the Germans said, it is looking like these sanctions are not meant to punish Russia but to help US energy companies gain a competitive advantage.

#5.2.2
to Russian sales of their gas. China will take it and the US will lose out there. If Germany wants to be America's bitch then they can pay extra for US LNG. Americans will then also have to pay more in the future because the US is still a net importer of hydrocarbons. They had to buy several tankers of Russian sourced LNG to make it through last winter.

Sell expensive US LNG plus put a crimp in Russia's economy. What's not to like? Unfortunately for the US, Putin always outsmarts them. The US has not won a single three dimensional chess match since he became President.

PS Three dimensional chess is what is played on the Grand Chessboard in Eurasia and the MENA region. When one player makes his move, the other player's pieces (there can be more than two players in the game) immediately jump into new positions. Obama was so bad at three dimensional chess that people thought he was playing in another dimension. The reality is that he was just playing with himself ;-).

The Turkish Stream pipeline is almost complete. There is an adjunct to this pipeline that will bring Russian gas into Europe (in replacement of the trashed Southstream). It's called the Tesla Pipeline and goes through Serbia. We can now expect Serbia to be drawn into conflict.

The US doesn't give a fuck about how many lives are destroyed as long as they stay top dog in the world energy markets. Oil courses through America's veins - not blood.

#5.2.2.1 Yah, as the Germans said, it is looking like these sanctions are not meant to punish Russia but to help US energy companies gain a competitive advantage.

After the collapse of the USSR. The U.S. was in charge of the chemical warfare labs and storage in Uzbekistan for a short time. They were supervising its destruction. This is where Novochok was born.

Unlike what the UK is trying to portray, just about everyone has the ability to make Novichok or has their hands on it. One of the creators of Novichok defected to the US. and published a book putting the formula in it. Access to the formula was wide-spread, and in the case of the US, they had access to Soviet made Novichok. Of course they took some.

The double agent was wasting in Russian prisons for years before he was exchanged. Nobody killed him then. Now suddenly Russians remembered him just before the Russian elections and world cup?

The more likely suspect in my opinion is the UK itself. No one is talking of brexit anymore are they?

Happened near their military chemical warfare station. The Novichok probably did not have far to travel.

Now the UK can shut down RT and Sputnik, Russian propaganda or not. if you want to hear what goes on in the west that the mainstream media refuses to cover, you watch RT. The British had tried every trick in the book to take RT off air without it looking like suppression of freedom of the press.

RT has a very large following in the US, as well, with a full line-up of American talent. It has more subscribers on YouTube than CCN, FOX, and several U.S. mainstream outlets, combined. Americans, certainly, will lose what access to news they have at first opportunity. Even more reason for a false flag.

A column by Peter Hitchens (yes, the brother of..) He makes a very frighten point when one considers the implication. Basically, maybe some powers within the Kremlin did in fact arrange for the nerve agent poisoning. Why?

But the more I look at it, the more I think that the message from this outrage is as follows.

If Britain really wants a war with Russia, as our Government seems to, then Russia will provide that war.

...

If the attack on Sergei Skripal was also a Kremlin operation, then it was done to tell us this: If we want to play tough guys with Moscow, we had better be prepared for the worst.

....

But what the Skripal case tells us is that, long after the Cold War ended, we still choose to treat Russia as the sort of country where we should continue active, aggressive spying and efforts to bring down the government.

Not only did we pay Colonel Skripal a lot of money for the names of Russian agents in the West, we financed opponents of the Russian government (and we complain that they mess around in our politics!). Why do we do this?

...

They are much angrier with us now than they were then. Yes, what they apparently did in Salisbury is a filthy, inexcusable thing.

But it is the face of modern combat, in a war our government chose to fight. What answer do we have to it that will not make it worse

Maybe the Russians discovered a UK plot to disrupt the World Cup and this is their warning to the Brits that there will be serious relatiation? The Saudis threatened to send Chechen terrorists to Sochi, and never head of them--I image when the Saudis threatened Putin, they came to regret it. But given the utter arrogance and stupidity of the neocons in the UK and the US, maybe Russia is sending a message--"do not fuck with us".

Shit is going to hit the proverbial fan.

up

12 users have voted.

—

The purpose of a writer is to keep civilization from destroying itself.
– Albert Camus

After the collapse of the USSR. The U.S. was in charge of the chemical warfare labs and storage in Uzbekistan for a short time. They were supervising its destruction. This is where Novochok was born.

Unlike what the UK is trying to portray, just about everyone has the ability to make Novichok or has their hands on it. One of the creators of Novichok defected to the US. and published a book putting the formula in it. Access to the formula was wide-spread, and in the case of the US, they had access to Soviet made Novichok. Of course they took some.

The double agent was wasting in Russian prisons for years before he was exchanged. Nobody killed him then. Now suddenly Russians remembered him just before the Russian elections and world cup?

The more likely suspect in my opinion is the UK itself. No one is talking of brexit anymore are they?

Happened near their military chemical warfare station. The Novichok probably did not have far to travel.

Now the UK can shut down RT and Sputnik, Russian propaganda or not. if you want to hear what goes on in the west that the mainstream media refuses to cover, you watch RT. The British had tried every trick in the book to take RT off air without it looking like suppression of freedom of the press.

RT has a very large following in the US, as well, with a full line-up of American talent. It has more subscribers on YouTube than CCN, FOX, and several U.S. mainstream outlets, combined. Americans, certainly, will lose what access to news they have at first opportunity. Even more reason for a false flag.

And what could possibly be gained by Russia doing that? Nothing positive, and it seems very out-of character.

The US PTB and their military deliberately target 'non-combatants', (wouldn't surprise me if the British PTB allied with them did as well, apparently being accepting of such random murders, and their spies and Porton Down scientists have certainly committed/condoned such/similar crimes) even just to get their 'terrorist kill' numbers up or in 'drone games' killing pedestrians, villages-full and funeral/wedding groups, not, as far as I've ever heard, Russia under Putin; the US PTB are known to routinely use terrorism and False Flags, as far as I know, not Russia under Putin; why and how would Russians smuggle a (claimed, but evidently not really) nerve agent into an area only a few miles away from Porton Down in order to - what - try to turn the people of other countries against themselves by using an insanely stupid method of assassination with a gas that didn't even kill the victims outright, as any military grade nerve gas would? (Were they perhaps simply drugged for removal, and used for this so far seemingly evidence-free claim?)

Every indication I've encountered so far says that this is a False Flag, apart from the propaganda stories out of the propaganda Press and the various PTB. And if a Consultant in Emergency Medicine who would have handled any such case says the NIH says that nobody had - or has ever - been treated in Salisbury by the NHS for exposure to a nerve agent, why would he lie? Have there ever been any verified and reliable reports of the victims in their hospital beds, or have they simply disappeared?

Regarding the following, I (and various of the commenters I read, a number of comments also being potentially of interest) fail to see any ambiguity in the statement as to the fact of there having been no patients in Salisbury treated for nerve agent exposure. Also, unless I've missed it, there's no mention in that article of where the doctor specified that those '3 victims ever' he mentioned were those claimed to have been poisoned in that incident? He carefully seems to have not done so, so if anyone knows where he has, that'd be great. My searches seem to suck rather badly on this and I lack the energy to dig.

Going by the reference to a phrase in the letter, (immediately below this comment) they do seem to be referring to the letter itself, rather than an interview or other communication, in any event seemingly unmentioned and with no direct quotes of the doctor using these terms?

In fact, since Skripal might be considered to be 'a member of the public' after, apparently, 8 years of British residence if he's been there since 2010 (according to dates given in the 2nd article quoted from, below), the statement that '...No member of the public has been contaminated by the agent involved. ...' seems to potentially indicate that either he and his daughter were not poisoned or not brought to/treated at that hospital. However, quite apart from food and 'household poisonings' - Porton Down is nearby; 'ever' in the doctor's closing statement that: '...there have only ever been three patients with significant poisoning.' does not seem to indicate 3 recent occurrences.

Published on March 21, 2018
Comments 69
What did the Salisbury physician mean by “no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning”?

Updated with link to Times article, March 21, & again with additional link & to correct date, March 23

... On March 16 Steven Davies, “Consultant in Emergency Medicine” at Salisbury hospital, wrote the following letter to the Times in response to an article that had appeared there two days earlier.This is the text of the letter:

“Sir, Further to your report (“Poison Exposure Leaves Almost 40 Needing Treatment”, Mar 14), may I clarify that no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve-agent poisoning in Salisbury and there have only ever been three patients with significant poisoning. Several people have attended the emergency department concerned that they may have been exposed. None had symptoms of poisoning and none has needed treatment. Any blood tests performed have shown no abnormality. No member of the public has been contaminated by the agent involved.

The article he is attempting to correct alleges “nearly 40 people have experienced symptoms related to the Salisbury nerve agent.” ...

Davies’s letter completely contradicts the claims attributed in the article to the “national head of counterterrorism” about “38 people who required hospital treatment,” and is clearly intended to do so. This is significant enough. It seems the Times accepted Davies’s correction, or at least published it in a follow-up article on March 16:

Dozens of patients who went to hospital after the Salisbury poisoning were unaffected by the nerve agent, a doctor has revealed.

As Theresa May visited the Wiltshire city and declared it “open for business”, Stephen Davies, a consultant in emergency medicine at the Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust, said that no one other than Sergei and Yulia Skripal and Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey had needed treatment.

But the phrase that puzzled us, and which has apparently been puzzling many others, is “no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve-agent poisoning.”

As a consultant in emergency medicine, Mr Davies would certainly have been involved in assessing and treating the Skripals and any other casualties when they were admitted to Salisbury hospital. He would seem to be in a position to know better than most how many were treated and what they were treated for. In the current situation where there is virtually no solid information available about what happened that day in Salisbury, this letter has assumed huge proportions, which of course may be unwarranted. ...

Haven't been keeping up on this aspect. Has there been much change from here, a week and a half ago?

The Skripal poisoning: What lies behind UK-US ultimatums against Russia?
14 March 2018

... But London and NATO have neither produced physical evidence of Kremlin involvement, nor established a motive for a hypothetical Russian attack. Nor has London explained why, if the Kremlin wanted Skripal dead because he spied for Britain in the 1990s and early 2000s, it did not execute him after convicting him of spying in 2006, and instead sent him to Britain four years later in exchange for Russian spies jailed by London. ...

... To those who say it is obvious that Russia poisoned Skripal, it is worth recalling the 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, in which a deadly strain of anthrax was mailed to many US officials in Washington, killing 5 people and infecting 17 more, shortly after the September 11 attacks. There again, media immediately blamed the attacks on obvious targets of US-UK war threats—the Iraqi regime’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program and its alleged ties to Al Qaeda. These all proved to be lies, serving Washington’s foreign policy interests as it sought to go to war in Iraq.

And, after the US invaded and occupied Iraq, as it became clear that Iraq had no WMDs and was not responsible for the attacks, it emerged that the particular anthrax strain used in the attacks had in fact been created by Washington’s own WMD program at Fort Detrick, Maryland. A US scientist, Steven Hatfill, was rumored to be responsible, investigated, and ultimately cleared.

It still remains unclear to this day which US officials were involved in carrying out the anthrax attacks. The FBI closed the investigation in 2010 after pinning the blame on another scientist, Bruce Edwards Ivins, who had committed suicide in 2008. However, the US National Academy of Sciences found in 2011 that the US government did not have sufficient scientific evidence to definitively assert that the anthrax used in the attacks came from Ivins.

In the Skripal attack, it is unclear how Moscow would benefit. The attack took place shortly before this weekend’s elections in Russia, and as the NATO powers ramp up a confrontation with Russia over their failed war for regime change in Syria that has seen US forces attack and kill Russian military contractors in Syria in recent weeks. The Skripal attack hands Putin’s enemies inside NATO an ideal diplomatic and political weapon to use against him.

The benefits flow to sections of the British and European ruling class who are stoking war hysteria against Russia, and sections of the American ruling elite, particularly around the CIA and the Democratic Party, working with them to discredit Trump as a supposed agent of Russia. The Skripal attack allows these factions to place enormous pressure on rival sections of the European ruling class, notably in the French and German governments, who are calling for a European military policy independent from the United States and closer ties to Russia. ...

... London has based its allegations against Russia entirely on the shifting analyses of its Porton Down biochemical warfare facility, located coincidentally only 10 miles from Salisbury. Initially, London alleged that Skripal had been exposed to fentanyl, a synthetic opioid more powerful than heroin. On March 7, however, British officials alleged that the poison was a nerve gas like sarin or VX, without explaining why Porton Down, a facility that has for decades specialized in producing nerve gases, failed to correctly identify one after it was used.

On Monday, May alleged that the nerve gas in question is in fact “novichok,” a special chemical weapon initially produced by the Soviet government. However, London has refused Moscow’s requests to actually provide it with samples of the substance used in the Salisbury attack for analysis, as required by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). As of now, at least, the case against Russia is based on the say-so of the Porton Down facility.

Porton Down is not a reliable source, however. It has a long record of illegal or covert testing of biological and chemical weapons on British citizens. These include the 1942 contamination with anthrax spores of Gruinard Island, which the British government was compelled to decontaminate in 1986; the unlawful death of Ronald Maddison in 1953 during trials of sarin gas on British servicemen; and the 1963-1975 spraying of biological weapons in Lyme Bay. The British government paid out 3 millions pounds to victims of such tests in 2008, without admitting liability. ...
Alex Lantier

Dunno but there are such a lot of areas in which I'd disagree with the author you quoted that we'd obviously have completely different perspectives:

(Emphasis mine, on some of the most damaging-to-others areas - including the fact that he believed Thatcher to be right on the Cold War and was doubtless affected by the 'Communist Threat' scaremongering even after Russia was no longer (gasp) 'Red'.)

...He was a member of the International Socialists (forerunners of the modern Socialist Workers' Party) from 1969 to 1975[8] (beginning at age 17), and was introduced to the organisation by his brother, Christopher Hitchens.[9] In 2010 he dismissed the "cruel revolutionary rubbish" he promoted as a member as "poison",[8] but later commented that "it was a reasonable mistake to have made. I'm glad I made it, because unlike people who've been vaccinated against a disease, I've actually had the disease and therefore I'm totally immune from it in a way that a mere vaccination couldn't possibly provide. ... It taught me how to think, in a lot of ways. So I don't regret the experience at all; I think everybody should have it."[9]

He joined the Labour Party in 1977, but left it in 1983 when he became a political reporter at the Daily Express, thinking it wrong to carry a party card when directly reporting politics.[10] This also coincided with a culmination of growing personal disillusionment with the Labour movement.[11] In 2009, Hitchens wrote of this period, "Against the Labour Party, which I knew to be penetrated by all manner of Marxists, and soaked in the ideas of the revolutionaries, it was increasingly necessary to support the Tories. This was partly because of the strikers' lies, but much more because of Poland and Czechoslovakia. On the Cold War, I knew she (Thatcher) was right and the Left were wrong."[12] ...

... A regular on British radio and television, he has been described as "a formidable interview subject, with a hostility simmering just beneath the surface – perhaps because, in his words, he is used to having to 'hit hard' whenever he is given the chance to air his unfashionable views."[40]

In 2011, Hitchens was booed by the audience for a Question Time programme, on which he appears regularly, when he said that the expansion of sex education had been followed by increased numbers of teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.[42] During the same programme, chairman David Dimbleby quoted to Hitchens comments made by John Bercow that The Mail on Sunday was "a bigoted, sexist, homophobic comic strip."[43] After his appearance, Hitchens wrote "Is there any point in public debate in a society where hardly anyone has been taught how to think, while millions have been taught what to think?"[44] Hitchens is also heard on Any Questions?,[45] This Week,[46] The Daily Politics[47] and The Big Questions.[48] ...

... Political views

Hitchens joined the Conservative Party in 1997, but left in 2003. He challenged Michael Portillo for the Conservative nomination in the Kensington and Chelsea seat in 1999, accusing Portillo of "washy moderation".[53] However, he says that he had "no interest in securing the nomination" and "no chance" of doing so, his real reasons having been to gain book publicity and "to draw attention to Michael Portillo's non-conservative politics".[54]

Hitchens believes that no party he could support will be created until the Conservative Party disintegrates, an event he first began calling for in 2006.[55] From 2008, he claimed that what would facilitate such a collapse would be for the Conservative Party to lose the 2010 general election.[56] In 2012, Hitchens announced he was once more considering standing as a Member of Parliament[57][58] and called for British citizens to form "small exploratory committees in existing constituencies, under the Justice and Liberty motto".[59]

Hitchens mainly comments on political and religious issues, and generally espouses a social conservative viewpoint. He is deeply pessimistic about recent, present and future Britain and sees himself as Britain’s obituarist, writing about what he sees as the death of Britain for future historians to look back on.[60] In 2010 Michael Gove, writing in The Times, asserted that, for Hitchens, what is more important than the split between the Left and the Right is "the deeper gulf between the restless progressive and the Christian pessimist",[61] and in 2010 Hitchens himself wrote "in all my experience in life, I have seldom seen a more powerful argument for the fallen nature of man, and his inability to achieve perfection, than those countries in which man sets himself up to replace God with the State."[62]

In 2009, Anthony Howard wrote of Hitchens, "the old revolutionary socialist has lost nothing of his passion and indignation as the years have passed us all by. It is merely the convictions that have changed, not the fervour and fanaticism with which they continue to be held."[63].
Beliefs
Morality and religion

While Peter Hitchens used to be an atheist like his older brother Christopher Hitchens,[64] he became a Christian later in his life. He became a member of the Church of England and is now an advocate of moral virtues founded on the Christian faith and institutions such as marriage.[65] Today Hitchens defends the use of the Church of England's 1662 Book of Common Prayer and of the King James Bible. Of the latter, he has written "it is not simply a translation, but a poetic translation, written to be read out loud... to lodge in the mind and to disturb the temporal with the haunting sound of the eternal."[66] He argues Christianity has been systematically undermined by social liberals and cultural Marxists. "The left's real interests are moral, cultural, sexual and social. They lead to a powerful state. This is not because they actively set out to achieve one," Hitchens writes.[67] "It is because the left's ideas – by their nature – undermine conscience, self-restraint, deferred gratification, lifelong marriage and strong, indivisible families headed by authoritative fathers."[67] He also believes that the First World War is the cause of the demise of Christianity in Europe.[68]

Himself a former Trotskyist, Hitchens now says that he is "in character, puritanical, and glad of a reason to be so."[69] He describes his political philosophy as "a conservative position flowing directly and inevitably from a theist position. I'm not saying you can't be a conservative without being a theist – it seems much more difficult, I'm not certain I can work out why you would want to be."[69] ...

... Liberty, security, crime, drugs and health

Hitchens advocates a society governed by conscience and the rule of law, which he sees as the best guarantee of liberty. He believes that capital punishment is an element of a strong justice system,[96][97] and he was the only British journalist to attend and write about the execution of Nicholas Ingram in America in 1995.[98] Economically, he sees himself as a Keynesian, although he concedes that it "must be adapted to deal with modern conditions."[99] ...

...Hitchens has criticised human rights laws and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), citing that "habeas corpus, the answerability of the sovereign to the law, jury trial, the right to silence, the rule against double jeopardy, the prohibition of torture, the freedom to bear and keep arms, the inviolability of property, the prohibition of search or arrest without proper warrant, the enforcement of open trials" are things "worth having", while the ECHR is "a counterfeit currency of fake liberty. And worse, it is a licence for judicial interference". Also, he believes that "‘Human Rights’ not only don’t protect us...they can be used by Judges to reduce our freedoms".[105] Hitchens has expressed support for reintroducing capital punishment, saying that "I think it is a great pity that we no longer have this powerful deterrent against cruel violence".[106]

Hitchens is well known for his anti-cannabis views,[107][108] and is opposed to the decriminalisation of recreational drugs in general.[109] He argues that the legal prohibition of drug use is an essential counterweight to "pro-drug propaganda."[110][111] He has stated that attempts to combat drug use by restricting supply and prosecuting drug dealers are futile, unless possession and use are also punished.[112] In 2012, Hitchens gave evidence to the Parliamentary Home Affairs Select Committee as part of its inquiry into drugs policy,[113] and called for the British government to introduce a more hardline policy on drugs.[114] Hitchens describes drug addiction as a "fantasy", stating that drug abuse is a choice.[115] ...

... Hitchens supports Israel and denies the notion of occupied Palestinian territory, viewing the British exit from Mandatory Palestine as having left a legal vacuum. He also praises Israel's "European" culture, which he says makes Israel "the permanent ally, in the Middle East, of the world's lawful and free countries", and which he suspects is the main reason for the perceived hostility of the Arab governments. However, he condemns past Jewish terrorism and some Israeli military actions.[133] ...

... Hitchens has been a skeptic of anthropogenic climate change at least since 2009.[141] Since that time his position has hardened, at times referring to climate science as a "cult",[142] "intolerant faith-based orthodoxy",[143] and "an obsessive, pseudo-scientific dogma."[144] ...

... LGBT issues

In 2002, Hitchens wrote a column criticising Sir Alan Duncan after he became the first Conservative MP to come out as gay. Hitchens wrote that as a "private homosexual," Duncan "needed and deserved the tolerance of those, like me, who think his choice is wrong but believe he had the right to make it." However, he continued, by "asking for open acceptance of his choice as normal," he had undermined the position of "heterosexual marriage" as the "ideal and right form of sexual partnership," and made a "gesture of contempt" to millions of people.[153]

He now argues that it is futile to express "conservative" opinions on homosexuality and same-sex marriage, as to do so merely ensures that one will immediately be accused of bigotry and the "subjectively defined thoughtcrime"[154] of homophobia, against which, he argues, it is impossible to defend oneself. For Hitchens, the same-sex marriage debate is a "Stalingrad" and a "diversion" from the more important issue of the general breakdown of marriage in British society, exemplified by the increased prevalence of divorce and single-parent families.[155][156][157]

In 2016, he wrote a column[158] criticising the outcome of the Northern Irish 'Gay Cake' case, in which the owners of a cake shop were successfully sued by a gay couple for refusing to bake a cake with the words "support gay marriage" written in icing. In a later radio discussion, he called the ruling "outrageously totalitarian," saying, "Where people can be forced to publish things with which they disagree, there is no freedom."[159] ...

So yeah, the (admittedly) peanut(brained) gallery occupant has grave doubts about the objectivity in certain areas of the great Peter Hitchens and begs to profoundly differ.

Putin has already made the point that no war will again be fought on Russian soil; Putin, unlike the US PTB, is known for keeping his word. if the delusional US and other PTB aren't capable of grasping even that, why the hell would Putin pull some pointless, pathetic, dumbass thing like sending an assassin all the way to Britain to (apparently fail to?) kill two people (purportedly with an (ineffective,) hand-sprayed? purportedly military grade nerve gas? Unobtrusively wearing a hazmat suit, the assassin passed unnoticed as he stood before his unwitting victims in a public place, spraying them with the deadly gas, and silently vanished without a soul becoming aware of his presence) just to lose support right before an election and while actively trying to avoid Mutual Assured Destruction being fanatically pursued by psychopathic ignoramuses accustomed to bullying the highly vulnerable lacking the capacity to defend themselves against illegal and immoral invasions and attacks? What kind of weak, petty 'message' would that be imagined to actually send? Guess I'd have to ask Peter about that, but I doubt that he'd find random internet commenters worth answering, lol.

As far as I'm concerned, you just can't always trust brand names anymore...

Apologies for typos/anything/everything I've got backwards; too tired to see straight still/again, but the number of people who feel the need to somehow or another work out a scenario where they feel that RUSSIA!!! might have 'Dun' It!!! is terrifying and a good brain and famous name is no guarantee of not swallowing at least some of the propaganda we're inundated in to the point where it's rather hard not to. And of course, we may not be able to see whether we have or not ourselves... oh, well...

But if there was any proof of Putin/Russia doing any of the everythings they've been accused of, TPTB'd be waving it like a (False) Flag, as it likely would again be proven (edit: promptly to be) by independent experts.

And re-edited to remove an unnoticed extra letter creating the wrong word...

A column by Peter Hitchens (yes, the brother of..) He makes a very frighten point when one considers the implication. Basically, maybe some powers within the Kremlin did in fact arrange for the nerve agent poisoning. Why?

But the more I look at it, the more I think that the message from this outrage is as follows.

If Britain really wants a war with Russia, as our Government seems to, then Russia will provide that war.

...

If the attack on Sergei Skripal was also a Kremlin operation, then it was done to tell us this: If we want to play tough guys with Moscow, we had better be prepared for the worst.

....

But what the Skripal case tells us is that, long after the Cold War ended, we still choose to treat Russia as the sort of country where we should continue active, aggressive spying and efforts to bring down the government.

Not only did we pay Colonel Skripal a lot of money for the names of Russian agents in the West, we financed opponents of the Russian government (and we complain that they mess around in our politics!). Why do we do this?

...

They are much angrier with us now than they were then. Yes, what they apparently did in Salisbury is a filthy, inexcusable thing.

But it is the face of modern combat, in a war our government chose to fight. What answer do we have to it that will not make it worse

Maybe the Russians discovered a UK plot to disrupt the World Cup and this is their warning to the Brits that there will be serious relatiation? The Saudis threatened to send Chechen terrorists to Sochi, and never head of them--I image when the Saudis threatened Putin, they came to regret it. But given the utter arrogance and stupidity of the neocons in the UK and the US, maybe Russia is sending a message--"do not fuck with us".

Shit is going to hit the proverbial fan.

up

4 users have voted.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Please know that you're not alone but that you're also wise to have anxiety about this. Let other people know what you're concerned about and explain the reality of it. I think most of this mayhem has to do with the fact that so many Americans, pundits, average persons, politicians, and even military leaders, do not know what nuclear war is or what it would do. When the American people understand what we're dealing with here, this crisis will evaporate, that is, if we bring our crackpot warmongers to justice, which we can do.

@Linda Wood
I'm doing my best. I just don't see how we're going to get all the sociopaths out of power, and prevent new ones from getting into power in the future.
I was saying to hubby last night, I don't understand how so many people can just not give a shit about what's right and wrong.

Please know that you're not alone but that you're also wise to have anxiety about this. Let other people know what you're concerned about and explain the reality of it. I think most of this mayhem has to do with the fact that so many Americans, pundits, average persons, politicians, and even military leaders, do not know what nuclear war is or what it would do. When the American people understand what we're dealing with here, this crisis will evaporate, that is, if we bring our crackpot warmongers to justice, which we can do.

@Daenerys
and the almighty dollar sits at the head of the table. You can create your own reality if you are a multimillionaire or billionaire. The world looks just fine from where they are sitting. They wouldn't change a thing, other than gaining more of the luxury goods they surround themselves with.

You and I are completely invisible to them.

#6.1 I'm doing my best. I just don't see how we're going to get all the sociopaths out of power, and prevent new ones from getting into power in the future.
I was saying to hubby last night, I don't understand how so many people can just not give a shit about what's right and wrong.

has been milking the taxpayers dry and eventually cranking out an already obsolete collection of junk, Russia has been leaping forward with breakthru after breakthru in advanced weapondry at a tenth of the cost.
Russia has achieved what should scare the living shit out of our military leaders, Nuclear Primacy, the ability to not only strike first, successfully, but to launch multible strikes thereafter.
World ending it would still be. But the Russian population are a much more prepared nation than the western world is, primarily because we are considered expendable by TPTB.
It will be TPTB that face the wrath of the Russian/Chinese invasion force.
Hitler and Emperor Hirohito feared the Russians more than anything else, subsequently surrendering to the allied powers in near panic.
Heads on pikes come to mind.

@earthling1
typically refer to Russia and China as not technologically advanced as the US.

These countries aren't stupid. They know the only way for their own security is parity (or better) with the US.

I find it interesting how the Russians keep talking in specifics about how much damage the US has done throughout the world. I don't recall this happening in the past--maybe it did, but I don't recall.

has been milking the taxpayers dry and eventually cranking out an already obsolete collection of junk, Russia has been leaping forward with breakthru after breakthru in advanced weapondry at a tenth of the cost.
Russia has achieved what should scare the living shit out of our military leaders, Nuclear Primacy, the ability to not only strike first, successfully, but to launch multible strikes thereafter.
World ending it would still be. But the Russian population are a much more prepared nation than the western world is, primarily because we are considered expendable by TPTB.
It will be TPTB that face the wrath of the Russian/Chinese invasion force.
Hitler and Emperor Hirohito feared the Russians more than anything else, subsequently surrendering to the allied powers in near panic.
Heads on pikes come to mind.

@earthling1
another country other than as a response to themselves being invaded.

has been milking the taxpayers dry and eventually cranking out an already obsolete collection of junk, Russia has been leaping forward with breakthru after breakthru in advanced weapondry at a tenth of the cost.
Russia has achieved what should scare the living shit out of our military leaders, Nuclear Primacy, the ability to not only strike first, successfully, but to launch multible strikes thereafter.
World ending it would still be. But the Russian population are a much more prepared nation than the western world is, primarily because we are considered expendable by TPTB.
It will be TPTB that face the wrath of the Russian/Chinese invasion force.
Hitler and Emperor Hirohito feared the Russians more than anything else, subsequently surrendering to the allied powers in near panic.
Heads on pikes come to mind.

So what did Putin say? And it's really, if if half of what he claimed for these weapons is true, and I'm sure more than half is true, he said, we have developed several weapons that do not lie at the ballistic level. That is, high in the sky and descend. They fly much lower, much faster, and they can allude any any missile system that you Americans have spent trillions of dollars on. So therefore, we have restored mutual assured destruction. He's saying that you Americans, and it's true some Americans did this, tried to develop missile defense so that you could threaten us wit,h or perhaps launch, a first nuclear strike knowing that your missile defense would protect you from retaliation. He said that was a fiction from the beginning. But we now have these new weapons which make it absolutely impossible. And so he ends by saying, therefore, having restored the balance of sanity, let us sit down and have major nuclear weapons talks again.

@earthling1
Russia has not achieved nuclear primacy. Short range missiles the US has more than likely placed in eastern Europe could hit Russian command and control targets in less time than it would take them to respond. That might make the Russian response ragged and uncoordinated. And the US might think, or expect the Russians to think, that our far from perfect ballistic missile defense could handle such a response.

Putin's announced hypersonic delivery system is intended to deliver warheads in that kind of environment. They would not need to flood ballistic missile defense.

But the Russian action is a clear restoration of the status quo, which was probably never threatened. Significant numbers of US strategic bombers wouod be in the air before the weapons arrived. And Trident has the ability to destroy Russia on its own.

has been milking the taxpayers dry and eventually cranking out an already obsolete collection of junk, Russia has been leaping forward with breakthru after breakthru in advanced weapondry at a tenth of the cost.
Russia has achieved what should scare the living shit out of our military leaders, Nuclear Primacy, the ability to not only strike first, successfully, but to launch multible strikes thereafter.
World ending it would still be. But the Russian population are a much more prepared nation than the western world is, primarily because we are considered expendable by TPTB.
It will be TPTB that face the wrath of the Russian/Chinese invasion force.
Hitler and Emperor Hirohito feared the Russians more than anything else, subsequently surrendering to the allied powers in near panic.
Heads on pikes come to mind.

@FuturePassed
than a quarter of the Russian defenses. The country is huge and most of the retaliatory weapons are constantly moved around like a shell game. Some are real some are fakes. Bombers are flying ducks for Russian ground-to-air missiles. These are extremely mobile and readily concealed.

Russia also has advanced submarines. They launched a new Borei II-class submarine in 2015 that can carry 200 hyper-sonic 100-150 kiloton independently targetable nuclear missiles that could completely obliterate the US eastern seaboard. These submarines run very deep and are extremely quiet. More are being built. The previous generation of subs are no slouches either.

Just a few weeks ago, Russian subs had cruised the Atlantic seaboard and Gulf of Mexico undetected. America's naval fleet are nothing but holes in the water ready to be filled.

Putin has repeated, over and over, in the event of a nuclear war, there will be no winner. He also stated that it won't be fought on Russian soil. That means he will take it to the aggressor's soil. Putin has never bluffed. "A world without Russia is nothing." The Russian people believe this very same thing. They know of war, completely destroyed cities and tens of millions dead, first hand. Americans know of war through the propaganda lens of Hollywood.

The US wastes at least 90% of it's military budget on pork and power projection. It has crap for homeland defense except against its very own citizens (who are its REAL world threat). Russia puts 100% of its defense budget into defensive weapons.

To top it all off, China would jump in on the side of Russia. The more the Alanticists have pushed against Russia the closer these countries become. Take careful note of the wording of the current relationship.

Western countries have been quite freewheeling in imposing sanctions on Russia, as they don’t see much cost in doing so.

The harsh attitude of Western countries toward Russia resembles their unity in the face of major geopolitical and value challenges despite problems in their own camp. Any non-Western competitor could become their shared target, which is part of the current world order.

Independent forces, including China, all face such risks.

...

In the message, Xi said that over recent years, the Russian people have united as one in firmly advancing on the path of strengthening the nation, realizing rejuvenation and development, achieving remarkable success in economic and social development, and playing an important constructive role in international affairs.

Xi expressed the belief that Russia will definitely be able to keep creating new glories in national development.

Currently, the China-Russia comprehensive strategic cooperative partnership is at the best level in history, which sets an example for building a new type of international relations featuring mutual respect, fairness and justice, cooperation and all-win results, and a community with a shared future for mankind, Xi said.

China is willing to work with Russia to keep promoting China-Russia relations to a higher level, provide driving force for respective national development in both countries, and promote regional and global peace and tranquility, Xi said.

...

Compare those comments to that of the war mongrels in the west who are using tactics almost identical to the false flag anthrax poisonings in the US which killed 5 people and infected 17 others in order to promote the Iraq war.

#7
Russia has not achieved nuclear primacy. Short range missiles the US has more than likely placed in eastern Europe could hit Russian command and control targets in less time than it would take them to respond. That might make the Russian response ragged and uncoordinated. And the US might think, or expect the Russians to think, that our far from perfect ballistic missile defense could handle such a response.

Putin's announced hypersonic delivery system is intended to deliver warheads in that kind of environment. They would not need to flood ballistic missile defense.

But the Russian action is a clear restoration of the status quo, which was probably never threatened. Significant numbers of US strategic bombers wouod be in the air before the weapons arrived. And Trident has the ability to destroy Russia on its own.

I believe that Russia is not scared of Western aggression. Russia has been through far worse and they have an enormous faith in Mother Russia and of course her guide, Vladimir Vladimirovich. The US in particular has been threatening Russia to the extreme and using the threat that the US has powerful marketing capabilities to shut down Russia in world opinion. Pretty much all of the claims against Russia are bogus marketing strategies towards that end. President Putin has adequately prepared for the Western military challenge with Russia's own military buildup, but has to take a different strategy with sanctions and negative marketing towards Russia. That strategy consists of refocusing Russia's economic trading advantage towards friendly counties, especially in the East, Eurasia and Middle East. The incessant bad press is not a factor there, they just don't believe anything that comes out of the West as they are sometimes the targets also. As far as the US marketing campaign is concerned in the West, that's why Russia has built RT. As long as RT stays reasonably symmetrical with other state owned news organizations I think that she is OK. The other problem that the West has with marketing is that none of these outrageous claims ever amount to anything. The House Intelligence committee (an oxymoron) decided that there was no collusion with Trump and that Russia did not effect the outcome of the 2016 election. The claims were totally outrageous and always accompanied by the "proof" that the head of so and so agency agrees with the claim. That's the tip off that there is no proof.

There is a serious threat emerging. I hate to talk about this but it is what it is. The Russian military has notified the US military that any deaths of Russian soldiers in Syria will be met with an instantaneous reaction. This means that Russia will shoot down US and other "coalition" warplanes and sink ships that fired the Tomahawks -- in retaliation. This will result in the loss of US military personnel. Russia has demonstrated more than adequately that she has the means to do this. I believe that this is a certainty given US recklessness in Syria.

After the collapse of the USSR, the U.S. was in charge of the chemical warfare labs and storage in Uzbekistan for a short time. They were supervising its destruction. This is where Novochok was born.

The US walked away, with out a doubt, with samples and formulas for Novochok and shared them with MI5/6. Russia does not posses any of this nor has it ever. The US not only has samples and formulas but has reproduced quantities. Russia is in compliance with CW treaties, the US is not. This is way too clever to not have been a CIA/MI6 op. Information about US possession of Novichok-like CW agent has suddenly gone missing. Remember what I said at the beginning about marketing warfare against Russia. This is it. The US and the UK are attempting to portray Russia as a barbaric, aggressive, uncivilized country and Putin as a thug with no ethics. Once again, projection but based on a false flag. The one topic that the Deep State loves to recycle over and over is chemical weapons. Somehow it's not barbaric when the US blows the arms and legs off of 5 year olds with bombs, but much worse to gas someone. Given the success of this ridiculous war mongering marketing strategy expect to see this over and over, especially accompanied with false flag events. One hint is that the UK is in a hurry to get other countries behind this as fast as possible. It's outrageous that they have gotten this far, but at the Foreign Ministers meeting the UK was told in no uncertain terms to provide proof before any other European nation agrees to sanctions, but they did agree to be outraged. As this thing falls apart they will get desperate, and demand action against Russia based on their "facts".
The UK/US best hope is that the truth never comes out and they can rush other countries into sanctions against Russia. Sound familiar?

up

6 users have voted.

—

Capitalism has always been the rule of the people by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.

Edit: it goes without saying that I think you've nailed it all in that comment, but then I thought perhaps I'd better say it, after all, lol.

I believe that Russia is not scared of Western aggression. Russia has been through far worse and they have an enormous faith in Mother Russia and of course her guide, Vladimir Vladimirovich. The US in particular has been threatening Russia to the extreme and using the threat that the US has powerful marketing capabilities to shut down Russia in world opinion. Pretty much all of the claims against Russia are bogus marketing strategies towards that end. President Putin has adequately prepared for the Western military challenge with Russia's own military buildup, but has to take a different strategy with sanctions and negative marketing towards Russia. That strategy consists of refocusing Russia's economic trading advantage towards friendly counties, especially in the East, Eurasia and Middle East. The incessant bad press is not a factor there, they just don't believe anything that comes out of the West as they are sometimes the targets also. As far as the US marketing campaign is concerned in the West, that's why Russia has built RT. As long as RT stays reasonably symmetrical with other state owned news organizations I think that she is OK. The other problem that the West has with marketing is that none of these outrageous claims ever amount to anything. The House Intelligence committee (an oxymoron) decided that there was no collusion with Trump and that Russia did not effect the outcome of the 2016 election. The claims were totally outrageous and always accompanied by the "proof" that the head of so and so agency agrees with the claim. That's the tip off that there is no proof.

There is a serious threat emerging. I hate to talk about this but it is what it is. The Russian military has notified the US military that any deaths of Russian soldiers in Syria will be met with an instantaneous reaction. This means that Russia will shoot down US and other "coalition" warplanes and sink ships that fired the Tomahawks -- in retaliation. This will result in the loss of US military personnel. Russia has demonstrated more than adequately that she has the means to do this. I believe that this is a certainty given US recklessness in Syria.

After the collapse of the USSR, the U.S. was in charge of the chemical warfare labs and storage in Uzbekistan for a short time. They were supervising its destruction. This is where Novochok was born.

The US walked away, with out a doubt, with samples and formulas for Novochok and shared them with MI5/6. Russia does not posses any of this nor has it ever. The US not only has samples and formulas but has reproduced quantities. Russia is in compliance with CW treaties, the US is not. This is way too clever to not have been a CIA/MI6 op. Information about US possession of Novichok-like CW agent has suddenly gone missing. Remember what I said at the beginning about marketing warfare against Russia. This is it. The US and the UK are attempting to portray Russia as a barbaric, aggressive, uncivilized country and Putin as a thug with no ethics. Once again, projection but based on a false flag. The one topic that the Deep State loves to recycle over and over is chemical weapons. Somehow it's not barbaric when the US blows the arms and legs off of 5 year olds with bombs, but much worse to gas someone. Given the success of this ridiculous war mongering marketing strategy expect to see this over and over, especially accompanied with false flag events. One hint is that the UK is in a hurry to get other countries behind this as fast as possible. It's outrageous that they have gotten this far, but at the Foreign Ministers meeting the UK was told in no uncertain terms to provide proof before any other European nation agrees to sanctions, but they did agree to be outraged. As this thing falls apart they will get desperate, and demand action against Russia based on their "facts".
The UK/US best hope is that the truth never comes out and they can rush other countries into sanctions against Russia. Sound familiar?

up

5 users have voted.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.